Hmmm well. It's fine as an essay, an opinion. If it were to be a guideline... I would have an issue with the example of an article being speedied out of process not worth being restored if it has no chance in AfD...

1. That would create a de facto CSD of "Has no realistic chance of surviving an AfD, in my opinion". The problem with that is that the person's opinion is often right, but fairly often wrong. Happens a lot.
2. If this is happening, the solution is to reform CSD (as happened recently to include nn groups) rather than to speedy individual articles.
3. Subject to abuse by a disengenuous rogue deletionist.
4. Process shouldn't (usually) be ignored and if it is the consequence should not (usually) be that the person ignoring the process gets their way anyway. Herostratus 06:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the other example used: closing RfA early. As discussed on the RfA talk page, the onus is on the person being nominated to withdraw their nomination, which then can do at any point. Some prefer to keep it open to get the maximum amount of contructive critcism. Other times, a RfA can be turned around even after a shaky start. At any rate, it's not the best example for WP:SNOW. Turnstep 13:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The bureaucrats seem to have a different opinion [1]. SNOW is common sense, not a straitjacket. I'd say the candidate has the right to keep the case open if they really want, but many (esp. newbie) candidates are unaware of exact procedure, and we've lost at least one editor over negativity in RFA. Radiant_>|< 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have no problem with bureaucrats closing AfDsRfAs, but I still don't think it's a good SNOW example as far as having people other than bureaucrats, nominees, and their nominators close the RfAs. As I've said before, people self-nominating should know what they are getting into. If a nomination is going badly, people already have no hesitation about letting the nominee know both directly on the RfA and on the user's talk page. But the decision to close the RfA should ultimately lie with them. I just think we can come up with better examples for SNOW, as closing other people's RfAs early is, at the least, a controversial action. Turnstep 16:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_45#Wikipedia:Snowball_clause. 5 people there supported early removal, and 10 were opposed. If you want to apply WP:SNOW to WP:RFA, then please start a poll on this matter at WT:RFA. --Durin 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No polls please, voting is evil. I'm assuming that Turnstep means "RFA" rather than "AFD"? You might want nominees to know what they're getting into, but plain fact is that they oten don't. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so we should play nice rather than assume people know all the rules. The suggestion that only a bureaucract should remove RFAs is moot, since I have the backing of a 'crat on this one. Radiant_>|< 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Oops! Alphabet soup on the brain. Did mean RfA, made changes above, thanks) Turnstep
      • One bureaucrat Radiant. One. Also note that the bureaucrat you suggest has backed your actions stated in August of last year, "if we're going to have a mercy rule, it's the bureacrats who should be applying it". ([2]). Pending further demonstration of his opinion, it would seem he backed his own action, not yours per se. --Durin 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also note that the RfA header currently says "Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion.". Also note Raul said in November of 2005, "I am adamantly against non-bureacrats deciding that there was no consensus". RfA's policy and Raul's statements seem to be against you Radiant. --Durin 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bureaucrat's are charged with determining the outcome of RfAs. Admins (and other editors) are not. If you'd like to be charged with closing RfAs, then please request Bureaucratship. -Splash^talk 16:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has come to my attention that several candidates don't appreciate being unlisted, because they like to learn from the feedback given. As such I believe my assumption regarding negative pileons and prevention thereof was in error, and I will refrain from making more snowball calls on RFA for the time being. >Radiant< 12:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "has a snowball's chance in hell" is ambigious because the more common idiom in Britain, for instance, is "doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell." As a compromise I've inserted the following, which I think is less ambiguous:

If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page belongs on the meta-wiki, if anywhere.

-Ikkyu2 -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the clasification and point of this article confuse me. As to classification, it's named as a Wikipedia: article, but its not policy or guideline or a proposed policy or guideline (at least, its not stated as such on the page). So what it is? I'm not making a point, I actually just don't know.

As to the point, it now has two small sections, each of which basically contradict the other. A minority rebuttal is OK, but this is basically two equal sections.So I'm not sure what purpose its serving.

Anyway, besides all that, I'm not seeing a huge amount of support for the whole thing... which makes sense to me. While the basic sentiment is unexceptionable, it's solving a problem that either doesn't exist or is minor -- after all, most people just stop voting on an RfA or AfD that that's running at or near 100% either way and has sufficient votes, so what's the problem with letting it sit a few days until closing. And on the other hand its just too subjective to be sitting out here, it could be misinterpreted or misused, especially when we are already having issues with some people accepting the need for a process at all...

All in all, I think this ought to go into userspace, or essay space. Does that make sense? Herostratus 02:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could almost say that it should be moved because it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of becoming official policy? :) Turnstep 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not everything in Wikipedia namespace is policies or guidelines. In fact, most of it isn't. This page is sometimes cited as a reason for doing something, primarily on DRV and sometimes (disputedly) on RFA. That doesn't mean it should be used always, or even often. It's just a minor meme, really - people say "KD - snowball" rather than "Keep deleted because if put back on AFD this article would end up deleted anyway so there's no need to be overly bureaucratic about it". HTH. >Radiant< 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest keeping it where it is at. As a Wikipedia essay, I feel it is more than appropriate to keep it with the current namespace and title - although I don't strictly object to transwiki-ing to meta, if people feel that this would be appropriate. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... Another user, Ambi I think it was, over at Wikipedia:Process is Important was pretty adamant that that piece either be moved to userspace or stamped PROPOSED (for an up/down discussion) on the grounds that people were citing it. But WP:SNOW I have also seen several cites for. Anyway, the upshot of that was that a disclaimer was added beginning "This page is an essay... It is not being proposed as official policy...", etc. (plus the article already was in Category:Wikipedia essays. So wouldn't it make sense to do that here? Herostratus 07:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's fine as it is. Stifle 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added this:

Attempting to cite this as if it were policy leaves you open to ridicule by those who can a) click a link and b) read.

I recast it into these terms:

Citations of this essay should be taken as a shorthand expression of the citer's personal opinion and not be confused with citations of official or proposed policies or guidelines.

I don't really think that the passage is necessary, given that the preceeding paragraph basically says the same thing. I would not have added it and I (personally) wouldn't object to its removal, but at any rate the more formal tone is better, IMO. Herostratus 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't becuase is misses the point. People are citing this as if it were policy and it is time they stopped.Geni 14:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are they citing it as policy or as just shorthand, a pointer to a expression with which they agree. Also, everything that goes on this page should be mirrored on Wikipedia:Process is Important IMO. Herostratus 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WP: extension, at least in my mind, implies policy or guideline. A see it over at DRV a lot, where people mention WP:SNOW as if it has any sort of bearing on anything in reality. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then your interpretation of WP: is mistaken. People regularly create new essays, suggestions, hopeless proposals etc etc and give them a WP: shortcut. It is no way a statement of officialdom of any kind and never has been. -Splash^talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The snowball pic is "LOL funny" but rubs it in a bit (which might be the point). Completely irrelevant to the article but it sure is "LMAO" kinda funny. --ZacBowling 08:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, once again, this is being misinterpreted as policy. It's happened over at WP:DRV a few times, I've seen it mentioned at WP:AFD, and it's slowly becoming an excuse to ignore process in relevant discussions. This helps nothing, even though it's clearly stated that it's not policy. Should we get rid of it so people don't refer to it as any sort of relevant guideline or policy, proposed or otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion as an alternative to education? No. -Splash^talk 00:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educating what, exactly? That process isn't relevant? That people see no need to achieve anything by consensus if they believe there's "a snowball's chance?" This doesn't disturb anyone? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 00:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Educating people that, if they cite it as policy, they are mistaken. Making the link red won't stop people invoking the spirit of the page, nor in some cases the letter. -Splash^talk 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted, in my opinion, although I'm not a big fan of it (I believe that not much is gained by hurrying to close things - what's the hurry? It doesn't really save work to close sooner.) But let people who want to say WP:SNOWBALL do so as a shorthand. I don't see why it would be better for people to have to say basically the same thing by typing it out. Herostratus 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it isn't policy doesn't mean it's inapplicable to the real problems we face on Wikipedia. Besides, deleting this would obviously violate WP:SNOW since someone would recreate it. :p Anyway, I think the problem is really abuse and misunderstanding of the snowball clause. To me, it's more than just about ignoring the rules. I'll go add something to the essay. Johnleemk | Talk 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there's always WP:MFD just in case you didn't know (not to sound patronizing). Really though, if people are acting out of process, and it's leading to negative things happening, then uh, deal with them acting out of process. I don't think this essay is making them do it... it just expresses logic that, if applied correctly, should avoid problems rather than cause them. I think a lot of people know it's not policy, they're just saying "Per the logic expressed in the essay, I think it would be a good idea to..." --W.marsh 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a guideline, or reccomended best practice. These things are always more powerful than policy, because they're wiser to follow, and are more likely to be followed.

Don't tell the police, but I often find myself passing a sign "legal speed limit 80" at 100, because apparently they can only enforce the limit by placing police officers. But if the sign says "reccomended speed 50", I typically pass it at 40, because 9 times out of 10, it turns out to actually be A Good Idea.

Kim Bruning 07:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC) going entirely offtopic: on german autobahns, they often DO set the legal speed limit to the reccomended limit. Don't blow past an 80 sign at the 160 you were doing before, you may not live to tell the tale.[reply]

• SNOW is unlikely to become policy for the reasons above. Anyway, speedy and prod seem to working OK, and every other article deserves its day in court. Articles which have 25 simple "delete" votes from experienced editors don't really need any more comment. However, something like:

"If, in the opinion of an admin, an AfD has been running for long enough to get a very clear idea of where the debate is headed, and that debate has been attacked, pushed off-topic or otherwise disrupted, that debate can be closed. Debates where the {{afdnewbies}} template have been applied or where the creator and / or one or more users with a vested interest in the article have made multiple posts displaying a clear ignorance of WP procedures could be candidates for closure under this rule."

...would surely be useful and far less contentious. Deizio 13:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because this page is not a rule, policy, guideline or anything. Thus adding new rules to it (which we don't need anyway) would have no effect. I don't see the hurry to close such AfDs anyway. What's the point? It'll only result in a deletion review and a repeat performance over there. -Splash^talk 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that such attacked / disrupted / off-topic / personal etc. AfDs (that are obviously heading for keep or delete) become divisive and get people worked up over nothing. They are also more likely to see newcomers bitten which can scare off new wikipedians. The "very clear" is to prevent this going to deletion review - as admins would probably not want to get dragged into something controversial at DRV by closing a truly contentious - rather than noisy - debate, then this would be kind of self-regulating. Obviously, SNOW is not policy or a guideline so I'm not advocating "adding" to it, just floating an idea on a talk page. Deizio 15:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a header which says this is an essay and not policy. A little italics thingy finger-wagging "OMG NOT POLICY" below it is ridiculous overkill and I've removed it. FCYTravis 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree. Herostratus 20:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Also agreed, which is why I've removed it again. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. It's too often cited as something worthwhile and it shouldn't be. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Most citations of it that I have seen are rather benign. And the repetition of a "warning" is rather pointless anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't think of many benign uses of it, to be honest. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way you're talking, it's as if this page is a threat to Wikipedia. Whatever you may think, the double warning serves no purpose. You're avoiding the crux of my point. Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • the warning was somewhat toned down from the original.Geni 12:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people can't read and make up their own minds, then they are going to end up confused no matter what steps we take to protect them. --Gmaxwell 15:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but if we just treat it as whatever, people might think it holds weight. It doesn't. It's nothing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A number of well respected editors disagree with your claim that it is meaningless. Be more considerate, your words here are very insulting. --Gmaxwell 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry if you're insulted by it, but it's not an insult. This is not anything. It's not policy, it's not guideline, it's merely a divisive essay. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, telling people to get more discussion if they feel an action would be reverted is sooooo divisive. Shame! Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, it wasn't there, but your continued mockery of my valid protests isn't appreciated. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just in case we're wondering if the "not a policy" flag is needed: [3]. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 03:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OH MY GOD! AN ADMIN CLOSED AN AFD OUT OF PROCESS CORRECTLY, BUT CITED A NON-POLICY PAGE! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO! Johnleemk | Talk 12:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your unnecessary mockery aside, this should never be cited as a rationale for anything, especially not an admin action. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what should Stifle have done? Should he have said "I'm closing this because there's no way we'll ever get consensus to delete this, judging from the response thus far"? Is that not exactly what WP:SNOW says? What's your problem? Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think these should ever be closed early unless there's a reason to via speedy keep/speedy delete, but to cite non-policy as a reason for doing so is doubly bad. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So let me get this straight. You don't like admins using common sense and closing AfDs early, but you tolerate them simply saying "I'm closing this because I think it should be closed early" instead of "I'm closing this because I believe in WP:SNOW"? Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't really tolerate it at all, assuming there's no policy in place designed to close them early. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • But people acting out of policy is part of our culture and is enshrined in a somewhere-between-policy-guideline-and-essay page (cough). Process wonkism is not a good thing if it discourages doing the obvious. (And even then, WP:SNOW as it stands is benign in this regard because it encourages people to seek discussion and not wheel war if the obvious is undone; this is why I prefer it over IAR.) Johnleemk | Talk 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that we shouldn't be putting redundant notices on this essay. Indeed it is so obviously best practise that I'm not surprised to see it cited in AfD closes. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And now people citing it for speedies: [4]. I'm starting to go as far as reconsidering my choice not to take this to MfD. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, go ahead. It'd be more fun to have people other than the two of us going around in circles. And on another note, stop comparing citing an essay to citing policy. People do these two things for the same reason: to provide a rationale for what they are doing. People cite WP:SNOW because otherwise they would have to type out in long form "This isn't worth keeping, an AfD would get rid of it anyhow, since it's obviously a hoax". Both stands don't fit in the process mold, but you seem to prefer jumping on people who cite a well-built-up page encouraging work towards consensus to people who cite whatever comes out of their head. Johnleemk | Talk 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear to me that the essay notice is being abused by people who believe they disagree with this page and wish to discredit it. I don't believe we should have a template for that purpose, and as a result I'm thinking of TFDing the essay notice. Before I start a forest fire, I thought I would ask for commentary here. --Gmaxwell 17:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just MfD this. The constant abuse of this project page is what warrants the notice. This is quite easily the most asinine edit war I've ever seen. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being consistently hostile or am I misunderstanding you? If you are, it's really making discussion difficult. If you are not, I apologize in advance for my misunderstanding. --Gmaxwell 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the discussion? A hostile non-policy page is consistently cited to attempt to, and often override, policy in other areas. The essay is divisive, and people insist on removing text that explains clearly that it is not policy or guideline or anything, instead erroneously calling it "common sense." Don't accuse me of hostility, I'm not the one pimping out a flawed essay currently to justify my actions on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you MFD the page, you'll contribute to adding more hidden rules to wikipedia. This is a commonsense rule that follows from the way things work. So in the end it won't go away, only the page will.

The idea is flawed. The idea is merely fueled by the page. Remove the page, and the idea thankfully carries less weight. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think Sapir-Whorf. Wasn't that shown to be essentially incorrect? Kim Bruning 07:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" has no place in rational theory (see monty hall problem amoungst other things). This page is an essay just like Wikipedia:Process is Important.Geni 11:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The featured essay tag is used in the most important and commonly cited wikipedia essays. The essay WP:SNOW is cited often in various discussions in Wikipedia and the mailing lists. It's even sometimes used at AfD. That's why I've used the featured essay tag. It does not claim universal consensus, so please don't remove it just because you personally disagree with the essay. Loom91 13:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup and things it has been used for have failed to be upheld at deletion review. If you want this as policy stop trying to do it through the back door.Geni 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another in the long list of corollaries to Be Bold. If somebody nominates a page that will never get deleted, just close it as speedy keep and redirect the discussion to the article's talk page. And, of course, let others be bold if they disagree.

So, should we redirect this to WP:BOLD? Zocky | picture popups 17:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]